<style>@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}</style><font face="Calibri"><p dir="ltr">Well, Robert, I think you disparage Mike D. By calling his thinking constrained, etc. Non-elastic is to irresponsible as Macintosh is to Pink Lady.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I do think you are correct in your theory. I had thought this too. Your notime/nomotion has expanded my thought. The way I had it pictured was that every outcome exists, making time like geography that we can't see. Just as I don't create New York if I go there rather than going to Philadelphia, so I don't create a particular future. All the futures exist and I simply travel to one by my choices.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But now that I have read your theory, I can see that it is basically the same thing, but yours is expressed better.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I am so glad to hear other people talk about this!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Susan</p>
<br><br>On August 9, 2015, at 7:23 AM, Robert Vaessen <notime@robsworld.org> wrote:<br><br><br></font><html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8">
</head><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">All -</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As I mentioned in a previous post - I’m planning to re-post some of my previous ‘No Time’ conversations in the ‘Akinetochronism’ forum. Here’s an old email from Mike D. It’s a good example of non-elastic thinking. Some people simply can’t think outside the box. They are constrained by traditional thoughts on physics and they feel that they must restrain others from thinking different. I’ve received many spiteful emails over the years (perhaps you have as well) - Thankfully they haven’t deterred me from expressing my personal opinions in a way that doesn’t disparage or insult other people. Your opinions are valuable - Please feel free to disagree with my ‘No Time / No Motion’ ideas, but lets keep the conversation civil.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the email below - Does this person argue that existence is limited to objects with three dimensions? Would anyone care to argue how a shadow doesn’t exist? As far as I can tell, a shadow can be sensed with our ability of sight, and it can be measured to have at least two dimensions (height x width). Doesn’t that in fact make it a 2 dimensional object? As a matter of fact, I can’t think of any other ‘object’ or class of objects that satisfy the requirements for something being two dimensional. Can you think of something (other than a shadow) that has two measurable dimensions, but not three?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The discussion regarding 2 dimensional objects led me to speculate that there are in fact ‘higher’ or multiple dimensions. That the actions of higher dimensional objects or beings may in fact have an effect upon us. Can multiple objects occupy the same physical space? Here I was attempting to demonstrate that objects in different dimensions can occupy the same physical space - provided they are separated from the other objects by their residence in another dimensional realm. This is an instrumental part of my ‘No Time / No Motion’ ideas. All these possible matter states occupy the same physical space. They’re separated from each other in a multi-dimensional array of possible matter states. I envision it more as a probability state or matrix than actual physical copies (with very minor differences) of each possible matter state. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When a node (matter state) is examined/observed/processed the probable/possible matter state is resolved. A collapse or resolution of molecular constituents occurs, and we observe the matter state that defines the node that we are observing. Does reality coalesce from a multi-dimensional quantum foam as we observe our environment? As we focus our senses or process the particulars of a particular nodal position we bring our reality into focus with a deterministic result.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Robert</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Email from ‘Mike D’ - May 26, 2006</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class="">
Really think about this...<br class="">
<br class=""><font color="#be38f3" class="">(Quoting Robert Vaessen: <a href="http://www.robsworld.org/notime.html" class="">http://www.robsworld.org/notime.html</a>>) "The shadow occupies
the same physical space as the solid object without displacing it (No
sidetracking on the other effects at this point). So here we can see
that <em class="">multidimensional objects can coexist simultaneously within
the same space</em>. A 2 dimensional object and a 3 dimensional object
can occupy the same physical space." <br class=""></font>
<br class="">
Of course a shadow doesn't displace anything... a shadow does not
exist. A shadow does not occur in the same space as the object
blocking the light. A shadow occurs when an object blocks protons from
continuing on their path. The shadow is merely an area that is not
being illuminated by light. <br class="">
<br class="">
It is irresponsible to post something like your "Time does not exist"
page on the Internet. People might actually read it and believe it.
Not that you are wrong, who really knows, but the content is atrocious.<br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote>
<br class="">
</body></html>